Community

This post is regularly updated with quotes and ongoing ideas about the future of Alignment in D&D.

-----

Quotes

From page 8 of this thread.

Jan 14, 2012 -- 12:33PM, JacobSinger wrote:

It seems that a lot of the people who dislike the idea of alignment really don't understand it at all. They see it as a straightjacket controlling your character, when it isn't anything of the sort.

Alignment is a REFLECTION of your character's actions.

From page 7 of this thread.

Jan 14, 2012 -- 3:17AM, Master_Drow wrote:

Alignment has consequences because of what you do. But it does not stop you from doing it. If you give no meaning, no consequences, no purpose to alignment then you get 4th ed. and soon after you get people who don't understand the purpose of alignment. And, four years later, you get this thread full of people who see it as a meaningless piece of bookkeeping that is stoping them from bashing goblins better.

From page 26 of this thread.

Jan 18, 2012 -- 10:00AM, Revelator wrote:

I think the DM should be the arbiter of alignment. Players should be free to act however they wish and the DM can keep alignment concerns (if alignment is used in their game) to themselves. The player can choose the starting alignment, but if a player chooses lawful good and then plays a horribly evil character, it is just silly to allow the character to remain lawful good just because "the player gets to pick." The alignment of the character should be determined by how the player is playing the character. That's where the player's choice comes in. The DM can adjudicate alignment based on the player's actions.

From page 19 of this thread.

Jan 16, 2012 -- 3:01PM, Sonofapreacherman wrote:

Kids test our limits constantly by seeing what they can get away with. If we abstain as parents and let our child get away with anything they want, they stop respecting us. When we care about them enough to define 'clear' rules and enforce them consistently, they respect us more (either in the short or long term). That's what the nine alignments with mechanical consequences do in D&D, but it's only a starting point for more meaningful alignment DMing. Still, it's an important gateway to role-playing that sets precedents for alignment accountability down the road your character walks.

-----

Original Post

Nine alignments.

Like them or hate them, alignments are the first gateway to role-playing a D&D character. It doesn't mean you can't or won't role-play without an alignment, but it does plant a moral flag on your D&D character sheet, regardless of how seriously you take that choice.

Screw Unaligned. You might be uninvolved in the world, but your adventurer is not. That's why they took up adventuring. Make a choice. If not for you, then for your character.

And you know what else? Even if the alignments are not perfectly described for everybody's liking, it doesn't matter. People are going to have their interpretations of them, and that's just fine.

But make no mistake, your alignment will be noticed or actively sought out by other players. That includes those who find choosing from nine alignments a daunting ordeal, either because it's too big a decision for them or not big enough to encompass the entirety of their pretentious complicated selves.

Moreover, it's not always about you! Alignments set a precedent for how other people's characters and the NPCs role-play around you, especially if you made a bold end-of-the-spectrum choice. The mere presence of such a character (say, Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil) can give other characters and NPCs a reason to fall in line or a line in the sand over which to step.

In short, your alignment is the first challenge you issue to the campaign world at large.

"This is who I am. Deal with it."

Nine alignments.

-----

Collected Ideas About Alignment from This Thread
Suggested Changes to D&D Rules of Past Editions.

• Alignment to represent a meaningful choice in the game with mechanical consequences.
• Alignment approached from the perspective of "I act this way thus I am X alignment" rather than "My alignment is X thus I am expected to act this way".
• Players still choose an alignment at character creation to reflect their imagined backstory or initial preferences.
• DMs can force alignment change if the actions of a character are judged to be contrary to their alignment choice.
• Forced alignment changes should be based on the overall 'purpose' of a character, rather than their individual actions in pursuit of that purpose (unless those individual actions are, more often than not, contrary to their chosen alignment).
• As per 4th edition, a player of any class should be able to choose any alignment, removing the possiblity that a forced alignment change would create a 'fallen' character. Furthermore, this promotes player freedom to create any number of iconoclastic narratives.
• For example, a disciplined barbarian who follows a strict code within an unstructured tribe, a rebellious monk who leads peasant revolts against a long ruling daimyo.
• God-worshipping divine characters must choose an alignment either identical to or within one-step of their chosen god and lose mechanical features of their class for role-playing against their alignment.
• The same would be true of characters who gain their abilties by making 'pacts' with more powerful creatures, regardless of whether they are divine abilties or not.
• Detect alignment spells should not exist in the game, or exist at higher levels, as they tend to promote metagaming and socialogical inconsistencies, especially in worlds were magic is readily available.
• Some iteration of a the Insight or Sense Motive skill should still give characters a 'gut feeling' about people's intentions.
• Protection from Alignment spells and Bane Alignment magical effects returned to the game, as they provide currently missing consquences for alignment choice.

Alignments should be an option in the new edition.

From a philosophical standpoint, they shouldn't be nothing more than guidelines. 

Jan 13, 2012 -- 9:03AM, JacobSinger wrote:

The hopelessly dumbed-down alignment system in 4E was not only an egregious insult, but it made absolutely no sense whatsoever.  How can you eliminate Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, or Chaotic Good when there are extremely obvious examples of these kinds of alignments?

Again, if it ain't broke, then "fixing" it for no good reason is simply crazy, and only ends up costing WotC a hell of a lot of $$$$$$$$$.

That's true. That's why I never picked up 4E. I tend to play characters that are LN, LE or CG... so, apparently that version of the game wasn't for me. However, it should still be an option.

The 9 Alignment system was, in my opinion, a nice starting point for roleplaying, but it got in the way more often than it helped.  I like it as a concept, but I hate that it played such a huge role in the game from a crunch standpoint: why can't a barbarian, son of the clan chieftain, who strictly adheres to the belief system and traditions of his people, be lawful?; why can't a monk, who disagrees with the way a ruler treats his people, and organizes a peasant revolt (training them to use their bodies as weapons, since they aren't allowed to carry steel) be chaotic, or even neutral good? 

The fact that they expect paladins to be lawful good in all of their actions, all of the time, is comedic.  I get where they're going with it (they're supposed to be held to higher standards, after all, and stand apart as shining examples), but it's ridiculous.  I played a paladin once who fell in love with a local barmaid, and saw a man attack and attempt to sexually assault her in an alleyway.  My character flew into a rage, and ended up beating the thug into a bloody pulp.  He was a paladin of Ilmater, and the Forgotten Realms book actually describes Ilmater as a diety who is slow to anger, but whose wrath is truly terrifying to behold when it's finally unleashed.  I felt like it was totally in-character ... my DM did not.  And it was a huge point of contention.

Anyway, I'm glad that alignment in 4E is an abstraction.  That's the way it should be, in my opinion. 

Someone needs a nap.